Timmah! said:
ScuubyT said:
ArtofAngels said:
mrstickball said:
They aren't the only company based on simple economics. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game markets for reasons far bigger than just videogames, therefor just using "they are losing money" as an excuse is dumb.
For Sony, they've almost always made a profit until they decided to push more online functions and Blu-Ray technology. As I've said, and will say again, Sony is pushing a machine to push Blu-Ray, therefore the actual benefit of the PS3 to Sony (as a corporation) isn't entirely in gaming. Therefore, their true profits off of videogames isn't entirely disclosed in mere P&L statements for the PS3, nor console losses. So what if the PS3 looses $200? The PS2 lost $120 per system @ launch (give or take), and ended up making Sony billions of dollars.
For Microsoft, they are taking the route of pushing alot of DLC, addons, content upgrades, and such. Consoles aren't their bread and butter, which is why they lose so much. However, their bread and butter are from vista/office sales, and software. Secondarily, they make lots off of servers, to which MS is using their servers for XBL content. For all we know, profits for the H&E division are less because sales of MS Points and XBL Gold subscripts. aren't included.
Nintendo is the only game company because thats all they are. For them, if Nintendo ever lost money, they'd go bankrupt. Sony and MS have the advantage of being able to lose money, and being able to recoup it.
You can extrapolate "oh, if Sony/MS were just videogame companies, they'd be bankrupt" thats just faulty logic. Your assuming that if both companies just made videogame systems, they'd pursue the same stratagies, but they wouldn't. They wouldn't have the massive bits of cash to invest in things that Nintendo can't even invest in. Theres a reason the Wii uses rehashed GC technology - it's cheap. Theres a reason Nintendo can't invest in a fully functioning online network - it costs money Nintendo is unwilling to pony up for quickly, as its alot of money. This is a plus and minus.
For consumers though, the Sony/MS is better in the fact that we gain where they lose. We get systems that are far more powerful for the dollar than the Wii. Which might mean, or not mean anything to various gamers (to me it does though).
Ultimately, your trying to make a hypothetical point thats totally invalid. MS and Sony aren't video game companies. Thats why they sell systems, and what they do works for them. |
Pink: Your Display pic typically matches the content in your post. Red: Make's no sense as is, however makes a little sense if you take Microsoft out. Blue: Makes even lese sense then the red zone, If I lost $5 in a poker machine do I declare bankruptcy? Green: I agree, but don't believe it will pay off. Purple: It's not really working for them at the moment now is it? Their Bread and Butter is elsewhere, fair enough that's true, but you've gone and said that if video games was all they had they would take different strategies, okay, so basically they don't care if they lose money, "Hey we have so much money lets make a supreme console just for shits and giggles" I think your wording was just a tad off. They want to win this War as much as Nintendo are, Profit wise. |
How do you figure that the "Red" comment isn't true? It's entirely, 100% true. Sony and MS don't exactly try to make a secret about that. They would only take a different strategy if they didn't have the money to lose, which Nintendo didn't have. If, and I'm not claiming victors or anything like that, the Cell and Blu-Ray become mainstream, Sony will be rolling in cash when this is over...whether they sell the most consoles or not. They had the money to lose so they could get the Cell and Blu-Ray out in the market, so they did. MS, on the other hand, doesn't want people to abandon high end PC's for consoles, so they created the DirectXBox. |
'Red' is definitely true! Sony has a lot to gain or lose with the success or failure of Blu-Ray & cell. On the other hand MS not only wants to push DirectX, but they want to invade every aspect of our daily lives... Media center PCs, Zune (made for bigger reasons then just music), Windows mobile, Windows CE, Windows XP Embedded, DirectXbox (Thanks, ScuubyT), before you know it we'll be eating 'Frosted MS Icons' breakfast cereal... |
Wow, looks like people liked my rainbow post, I even noticed some people taking on my new trend,
If Microsoft didn't want people abandoning High-End computers then why give people another gaming option in the first place? especially one that's always losing money, In all respect to the persons day that you made with that post's reply, Good for you.
It makes no sense, you also went on to imply that Blu-ray will pay off, when is what i'd like to know?
With decreasing PS3 sales and shifting 3rd party support almost no-one here even knows what the hell Blu-ray is, the only place you can even buy it's limited options of Movies is game stores, where people don't go to look for movies, ones in which are about $10 more then your average DVD.
In fact why do you think Microsoft back the HD-DVD format? It's because they want people to be confused with the formats and bugger off both Blu-ray and HD DVD all together, in fact I believe I recently read an article from Microsoft saying that both formats will be irrelevant, obsolete, and never fire off which basically points to my 'theory' to the only reason they backed HD DVD in the first place was to help hammer a nail in PS3’s coffin.
Answer me this, please, I eagerly await any possible answer to this question:
Do you really think Sonys ambition is to kill it's gaming department to increase awarness that there is a new format of DVD out there?
